Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description still carries some burden. It adds useful auth context ('Secret key only') and names the data being reported, but it does not disclose whether this creates or overwrites an outcome, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects reporting actuals may have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loads the core action. Every phrase is compact, though 'Scope: outcomes' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and the description duplicates the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with five parameters, weak annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits what 'reporting actuals' does to the job, whether fields can be omitted, how the secret key is supplied, and how this differs from related job/submission tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, so the schema documents job_id, notes, and actual_total_cents but not actual_hours or actual_crew. The description labels 'hours, final cents, crew', which maps to the undocumented parameters, but adds no units, constraints, or required/optional context beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'actuals' with specific components (hours, final cents, crew), so an agent can tell what the tool captures. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like submit_job or ballpark_estimate, even though 'actuals' implies a post-completion action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_job or quote_inventory. 'Scope: outcomes' is too vague to serve as a usage condition, and there is no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.